The legislation also extends an implicit pledge that has little precedent in the history of U.S. foreign assistance: to continue purchasing lifesaving drugs for millions of individual people in developing countries for an indefinite period of time.

Foreign aid for health care has traditionally been used to put up buildings, buy equipment and train workers. Direct medical care of individuals was limited to one-time interventions such as vaccinations, emergency treatment after natural disasters, and curative treatments of limited duration for diseases such as tuberculosis or leprosy.

Bush's program is fundamentally different. So far, it has purchased vast quantities of anti-retroviral drugs and supported day-to-day medical care for more than 1.4 million people whose survival depends on continued treatment. "It is the first time I can think of where we have foreign aid treating a chronic disease," said Michael H. Merson, director of Duke University's Global Health Institute and a former head of the World Health Organization's AIDS office. "It's a challenge to take this on. I think the questions it raises are going to be important ones for the future."

I'm to the point I might even vote for Obama if he promised the first thing he's do is sign a true balanced budget into law so that we can't spend a dime more than we take in. We have no money how can we be sending $5B a year overseas in just this one bill.

Well, these countries will start breaking international agreements and producing the drugs themselves since they cannot afford to buy them from the pharmaceutical companies. Or, they will negotiate with France and other countries that produce equivalent drugs. Thus, by doing this, Bush protects the pharmaceutical industry and helps save the lives of millions of mothers. I would have thought the righties would at least have sympathy for the former.

Just out of curiosity, why is it so easy to ignore the fact that millions of people in Africa have AIDS and will die? While I can see arguing against aid, to do so without mentioning the victims of AIDS seems cowardly. There is a legitimate moral question here where the religious right and the left seem to stand largely together.

Well, these countries will start breaking international agreements and producing the drugs themselves since they cannot afford to buy them from the pharmaceutical companies. Or, they will negotiate with France and other countries that produce equivalent drugs. Thus, by doing this, Bush protects the pharmaceutical industry and helps save the lives of millions of mothers. I would have thought the righties would at least have sympathy for the former.

Click to expand...

Countries can break lots of agreements before I'll want to spend $40B. That's $133 per person (I think we have about 300M now, right ?). That's close to $600 from my family.

Just out of curiosity, why is it so easy to ignore the fact that millions of people in Africa have AIDS and will die? While I can see arguing against aid, to do so without mentioning the victims of AIDS seems cowardly. There is a legitimate moral question here where the religious right and the left seem to stand largely together.

Click to expand...

It's not for the government to make me support this. As I have said before the feds can set up a (non tax deductible) charity that you and all the other bleeding hearts can choose to support. Have at it. Spending money on the health of people in other countries simply should not be allowed.

Just out of curiosity, why is it so easy to ignore the fact that millions of people in Africa have AIDS and will die? While I can see arguing against aid, to do so without mentioning the victims of AIDS seems cowardly. There is a legitimate moral question here where the religious right and the left seem to stand largely together.

Click to expand...

Until Africa is stabalized(which I'm not sure it can be in the next century) as there are conflicts in Sudan, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Somalia, Zimbabwee, Ethiopia, Eritrea, and even Chad. In the last decade there have been conflicts in Liberia and Rwanda and I'm sure I'm missing a bunch of countries.

The atrocities committed against women and children are obscene.

I think the efforts(not necessarily a load of money) should be concentrated in development and stabalization of the continent and education.

There is a lack of education in Africa.

CAPE TOWN, South Africa (AlertNet) ï¿½ Babalwa Tembani is proof that the myths surrounding AIDS can be as deadly as the epidemic itself. When she was 14, she was raped by an uncle who thought he could cure himself of the disease by having sex with a virgin.

The crime left Babalwa, now 21, HIV-positive and dependent on antiretroviral AIDS drugs to prolong her life.

The myth that sex with a virgin is a cure for HIV/AIDS is one of many that make the fight against an epidemic that has struck 40 million people worldwide -- nearly two-thirds of them in sub-Saharan Africa -- even more difficult.

Well, these countries will start breaking international agreements and producing the drugs themselves since they cannot afford to buy them from the pharmaceutical companies. Or, they will negotiate with France and other countries that produce equivalent drugs. Thus, by doing this, Bush protects the pharmaceutical industry and helps save the lives of millions of mothers. I would have thought the righties would at least have sympathy for the former.

Click to expand...

So ... we can't waste billions saving Iraqi mothers but we can spend billions saving mothers who don't live in Iraq? I have no problem with being a world leader but when you're broke ... you're broke and we are pretty well broke. How about $40 billion to prop up our social security system so that the workers who help build this great country can get to retire in it somewhat peacefully?

So ... we can't waste billions saving Iraqi mothers but we can spend billions saving mothers who don't live in Iraq? I have no problem with being a world leader but when you're broke ... you're broke and we are pretty well broke. How about $40 billion to prop up our social security system so that the workers who help build this great country can get to retire in it somewhat peacefully?

Click to expand...

We've spent 40B many times over taking sons and husbands away from Iraqi mothers, and for that matter directly removing said mothers from their earthly troubles. But all assinine phraseology apart (on my part...)

I can't really see the comparison between a single nation, Iraq, of some 27 million people, with a continent, Africa, with over 900 million inhabitants. Iraq has also benefitted from a tremendous amount of US Aid, but it unfortunately takes the form of destroying their infrastructure, attempting to rebuild their infrastructure, killing other guys who want to destroy it some more, rebuilding it again, rinse, repeat.

The weird Iraqi red herring aside, it's interesting to discuss the purpose of the bill; one would assume, however, that big Pharma has made it clear that they'd rather the government fund a huge aid project to buy their product at full price, than have to drop that price continually to meet the needs of impoverished markets. On the congressional side, the gift to big Pharma, with the humanitarian wrapping, has to be a hit all around: look like a humanitarian, grease the right skids, get the campaign money nailed down, all with one little $40B gesture. For Bush's part, I don't think he gives a fiddler's fart about $40B. He might even be thinking about his "legacy", or just want people to stop being mean to him on TV, or it might be that "compassionate conservatism" we heard about 8 years ago but never really materialized.

Is it better that this happen than this not happen? I suppose I have to say yes, though requiring the pharmaceuticals to kiss off some of their profits and lower the price for the poor in general would seem indicated in the case of life-ending illnesses. They'd cry that they could not do R&D without charging back the costs through the production chain for a number of years; but the truth is that unless required to forego profits, it is their fiduciary responsibility to gouge the dying. It is their business.

Whatever... I'm for it. I do suspect it, but I'm for it.

PS, Patters.... you really think we can allow third-world nations to produce pharmaceuticals? That's the same thing as chemical and biological weapons!

It's not for the government to make me support this. As I have said before the feds can set up a (non tax deductible) charity that you and all the other bleeding hearts can choose to support. Have at it. Spending money on the health of people in other countries simply should not be allowed.

Click to expand...

I think we have a fundamental difference there. To me, your view is immoral. I'll grant you there has to be limits, but I don't think we're losing anything important by this kind of investment, and it could yield a return, though that return is difficult to measure.

So ... we can't waste billions saving Iraqi mothers but we can spend billions saving mothers who don't live in Iraq? I have no problem with being a world leader but when you're broke ... you're broke and we are pretty well broke. How about $40 billion to prop up our social security system so that the workers who help build this great country can get to retire in it somewhat peacefully?

Click to expand...

I'm all for giving aid to Iraq and all for building up the Social security System. Maybe we can even do everything. It all depends on what it's worth to people like you. But, I think I'm pretty well on record as advocating programs to help the needy, even if my taxes go up!

I think we have a fundamental difference there. To me, your view is immoral. I'll grant you there has to be limits, but I don't think we're losing anything important by this kind of investment, and it could yield a return, though that return is difficult to measure.

Click to expand...

We can't support the whole world. That's what we're trying to do and we have a debt we'll never climb out of.

We can't support the whole world. That's what we're trying to do and we have a debt we'll never climb out of.

Click to expand...

I've come to a couple of conclusions:

1. There is no intention on reapying a debt if you keep giving money away. Would you keep giving money away if the balance on yoru credit card kept going up?

2a. We support the world because we are an empire just like Rome. There is the talk on the new world order. well i think there is plans for this, look at how many foreign military bases there are. there are hundreds.

2b. No civilization has ever controlled or conquered the entire world because it takes too many resources and we will falter the same.

The more you nuture the branches, the more the trunk and roots start to rot away.

Just out of curiosity, why is it so easy to ignore the fact that millions of people in Africa have AIDS and will die?

Click to expand...

Lots of people die everyday ... am I supposed to spend my life worrying how to stop that? Death is the end of a life ... some go peacefully and some go horribly ... it's the way it is. I have my own life and my own families life to take care of ... for those I cannot directly help I donate what I can but I do not spend everyday worrying about what I cannot control.

Just out of curiosity, why is it so easy to ignore the fact that millions of people in Africa have AIDS and will die? While I can see arguing against aid, to do so without mentioning the victims of AIDS seems cowardly. There is a legitimate moral question here where the religious right and the left seem to stand largely together.

Click to expand...

I think we should keep out money.
Just have AL & Jesse light a candle and say a prayer.

That 5 billion is squat compared to Obama's global poverty act
which will cost us $65 billion dollars above what we already give
per year in foreign aid. Obama is going to let the UN distribute
our $65 billion. Why do I have a feeling that the poor thrid world
people are not going to see a nickle if the UN is running the program.